[sridca]

That's a clever way to mention (suggest) Mr. Peterson and evade the downvotes. :-P

Being an individualist I don't agree with his life advice one bit.

Those that are not looking to settle down to anything less than perfect in life I'd suggest looking up "Actual Freedom".

[slothtrop]

> Being an individualist I don't agree with his life advice one bit.

Without knowing much about him, my impression was such that he's a staunch individualist

[sridca]

I have read parts of his book and watched some of his lectures, and would hardly characterize him as a person who is independent and self-reliant (which is what the word individualist refers to).

Just for starters, allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

[slothtrop]

> hardly characterize him as a person who is independent and self-reliant

Maybe you have some example as to why.

> allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

This sounds like a mischaracterization of whatever it is is espoused. No one lives in a bubble, but a strong social network isn't antithetical to self-reliance, because self-reliance isn't an absolute nor is it purported to be - 0 people are entirely self-reliant in the literal sense. It's in practice about initiative, to move beyond a stagnant dependency. For example, seeking professional help in the instance of mental health to improve our lot, or reading a book to that same end, is an example of self-reliance at work. No one can make you do it. You have to want to improve. I see it as self-motivation.

[sridca]

I'm talking specifically about the life advice being dished out by Mr. Peterson. Given that you said "without knowing much about him" perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with what he is promulgating before continuing this discussion.

[slothtrop]

If you know, you can sum it. Should be easy if you criticize it in abstract

[sridca]

Yup I did:

> Just for starters, allowing your well-being [to be] dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

It may be hard for some not to lump self-reliance (aka. being autonomous) and hierarchy-consciousness (to coin a word) together; which is where the third paragraph of my original comment comes into picture (something you seem to have ignored[1]).

---

[1] I can guess it because of this:

> [slothtrop]: 0 people are entirely self-reliant [in affective context] in the literal sense.

As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.

And:

> [Mr. Peterson]: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their [hierarchical] structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".